I smell a rat!
It appears to be human error combined with a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin secures transactions into the next block. Our programmer was under the assumption that one block was good enough to secure a transaction. Two years ago when the software was written, this single confirm myth was a popular belief.
(I'm going to state my case with words and pictures, working somewhat backwards from the quote above)Two years ago when this building was build, my builder told me that this lock (or block) would be secure enough to thwart off any B&E.
But we know that
this single confirm myth now rings hollow. It has now been shown to me by other builders that this is the best door lock on the open market (although still not 100% secure):
It appears to be human error combined with a misunderstanding of how buildings should be secure, especially ones built for the sole purpose of storing other people's valuables. Next time we'll have it most secure with this building:
It's because of this lock choice that an unknown thief has been entering the building for the past several days taking your valuables that you entrusted me with. After careful inventory (proving that I've been very busy, thereby not having any time to tell you all this until now), I only have about half of everybody's valuable stuff left. I will be returning all the valuables to their rightful owners, but this will take time. BTW, I'm well aware that during all this time, the stuff you will be getting back will only be worth half its value compared with the time you first entrusted me with it. Lucky this wasn't a total lost.
The following is what I believe really happened (let me know if you agree):The owner and the builder are in cahoots with each other, or they are the same person. A strong enough lock was put in place to show that there was a lock. That lock was unlocked daily to take out a few valuables at a time. Afterwards, the site goes into lock down, allowing time to fence the goods. The owner/thief announces what happened by providing a statement riddled with vagueness. An offer to return half the valuables is proposed, thereby allowing him to keep half at about full value, while returning the other half at half value, due to the market.
Here's a better example:I own a storage facility with several storage units. It's surrounded by a fence with a gate having a chain and lock. There is a camera mounted on a pole, pointed towards the entrance gate. The only people with keys to the gate are the storage unit renters and me, the owner. No one is allowed after hours to enter the facility. But I do! For several nights in a roll, I'm taking stuff out of each unit, for I have a way of hacking each and every lock on all the units. I leave for several days afterwards to fence the loot. Now, this being RL, cops are called in, by me, for I realize that some of my stuff is stolen from one of my personal units. Upon further investigation, every other unit renter had stuff stolen. The detective sees the camera and wants it for his investigation. I climb the pole, get the camera, and give it to the detective. This being a sharp detective, asks for the recording devise that has the footage taken with the camera. He's not that shocked when I inform him that I don't have a recording devise. The camera is just a decoy to ward off any B&E's. I'm not even sure if the camera functions properly, but it sure the hell was doing a good job until this incident. The detective dust for fingerprints, but won't find any of mine for I wore gloves. He may find my DNA in each and every unit because I have been in each and every unit. In fact, he may even find my fingerprints in some of the units because prior to him being called, I was in those units with the victim renters, making sure I touched as much stuff as possible in front of them.
I'm not a computer security geek, but I can smell a rat. To make sure that this is a possible scenario, I asked my nephew to read the above for his take, because he is a computer geek. After reading it, his exact words were, "Exactly!" We discussed (well, mostly he spoke) about the ins and outs of computer criminals and how they think, act, operate, etc. He even stated that he liked my storage facility idea, and would use it if he had a criminal mind. I asked him if there is anything else to add to this, and he said no and that it was basically self explanatory. He then went back to playing his Xbox 360. I'm most certain that his comment was sincere, as I'm most certain he wanted to get back to playing his stupid game, hence not offering up any type of edit. Come to think of it, he's been acting pretty suspicious ever since this mybitcoin.com incident arose.
